Page 38 of 45 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 443

Thread: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

  1. #371
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    What part of marriage laws have nothing to do with procreation don't you get? You are not required to procreate when married, and you are not restricted from procreation until you get married. There is no rules about procreation included in the government marriage contract. Oh, and gay people are mostly perfectly capable of procreating, and many even chose to. Some even by natural sex.
    You do realize you're making the case for MY argument here right? Based upon your reasoning sisters can "marry". A father can marry his adult son. Any combination that consenting adults can think of can potentially be "marriage". It's called Nihilism.

    Gay sex will never result in procreation unless it's some abnormal Frankenstein experiment

    lack of retort noted. Your argument does nothing to rebut mine and is therefor invalid. See, i can do it too.
    You only quoted the first sentence of the entire paragraph and you're now dodging. Honestly, if this is the best you can do than you are beneath me and not worth my time.

    I see, you think a strawman is a good argument that you have no rebuttal to. Yes, i guess in that case i do open up most of my arguments to you with a strawman.
    Recognizing that marriage has always meant man + woman and not man + ? or woman + ? is not a strawman. It's irrefutable fact that you cannot deny.

    Oh yeah, high divorce rates, and a general change in the family unit has certainly not happened in the past 100 years because of straights changing.
    High divorce rates because of humans are flawed by their very nature. Once again you're engaging in emotional reasoning. Not logical and rational arguments. Secondly, gay marriage isn't going to change anything you listed as having "harmed marriage". Once again, because you consistently use emotional reasoning and have no logical argument, you make my case for me. Gay Marriage would only trivialize marriage as an institution even more. Not strengthen it.

    Maybe we shouldn't be letting straight people get married if they cannot respect their commitments?
    Straight people getting married doesn't change the definition of marriage as it has always been known in human history. Individually people need to take responsibility for their own actions to make their marriages work. That has no reflection on marriage as a traditional institution with specific social and economic purposes.

    No, that is the romanticized modern version of it, but marriage has mainly been a financial and political power tool.
    Marriage has always been about children. You're using emotional reasoning again. Children do best when raised by their biological parents in a low conflict household.

    OMG that is so awesomely ignorant and stupid i have actually lowered my opinion of you. Seriously, the history of marriage shows that it was often for the joining of families for economic and political power. I am pretty sure that humans started off screwing like animals and not giving too much care to marriage and partnerships. Humans are not naturally a monogamous creature. We did not come into existence with the rules of marriage tattooed to our hides by god. Marriage is a man made creation and therefor we govern it. But if i am wrong feel free to prove the existence of god and then show us god's declaration of the rules of marriage and prove to us that he wrote them. I'll wait.
    Ad hominem attacks are not arguments. Marriage has always meant man + woman. Not man + ? or woman + ?. You're looking silly ranting about religion too.

    Well then sisters marrying brothers is the same concept as straight marriage. If you can remove incest from straight marriages then you can remove it from gay marriages also. Oh, and just to use your own silliness against you, since gay relationships do not lead to natural offspring as you said it is impossible for same gender siblings to breed with each other and therefor the incest argument goes completely out of the window because they cannot combine their genetic material and risk defective children. You are failing on so many levels.
    You're still ignorant as to why incest laws exist in the first place. Comical and embarrassing. Sisters cannot marry brothers because of inbreeding. That's why there are incest laws. I specifically said sister marrying sister. Brother marrying brother. Father marrying adult son. Incest laws would NOT apply to those marriage since same sex intercourse doesn't result in breeding. Your projection in regards to "failing on so many levels" has once again been noted.

    ll you what, when you post a fact i will refute it. Since that has never happened i think i will just stick to knocking the crap out of your emotional and rational BS.
    I have repeatedly and you simply don't have the intellectual capacity to counter with rational arguments. You have resorted to name calling yet again and ranting about religion.

    Just pointing out that marriage in the governmental sense is a civil contract of partnership between two people which has no bearing on religion, god, or even the sexual laws of the state. You seemed to be very confused and wrong about what marriage actually is, and I really was just trying to help explain it to you. But feel free not to learn and to keep spouting crazy BS like marriage has been around since the beginning of human existence. I am sure that will help your reputation out greatly.
    I have never once mentioned religion in this discussion. Marriage has always meant man + woman. Not man + ? or woman + ?. The fact that you keep bringing up religion only affirms that you are grasping at straws.

    Considering you are unaware of arranged marriages and that you think marriage law has been around since the beginning of human existence and has always been the same i am pretty sure you are not capable of telling us what marriage has always been. but don't let your overwhelming and very obvious ignorance on the subject stop you from helping me out.
    Now you're bringing up "arranged marriages" for some odd reason. Again, that type of marriage (which nobody is discussing) still doesn't change the definition of marriage from Man + Woman to man + ? or woman + ?

    Consider this the last time I reply to your nonsensical gibberish. Clearly you incapable of having a discussion and have to resort to ad hominems when you can't refute facts

  2. #372
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    I don't think you are here for truth. I think you are here to proselytize via subterfuge.
    Like others here with nothing of real substance to say... we have nothing to discuss. Use some logic, cite some sources, utilize evidence... or else move on please.

    Thanks.

  3. #373
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,133

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Marriage has always meant man + woman.
    Ahem...

    Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  4. #374
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,133

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    We have not progressed as a society by promoting wild unproven [except proven wrong], methods that have never worked in the past. You see, we want this country to stay strong and vibrant...we have a history to show how that occurred... you want what you want no matter what... is that not selfish?
    If you can point to clear evidence of how same sex marriage has been harmful to society or to other marriages, then I will be happy to reconsider my position. Your side has had decades to make the case that same sex marriage is harmful and you have failed on every occasion.

    I want marriage, not for me, but for my family. Any children I have would benefit from it. Is it not selfish of you to deprive children of gays the benefits of having married parents?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  5. #375
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    06-29-14 @ 09:29 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    360

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    It wasn't unexpected that the bigots would kick and scream as they're dragged into the 21st century *shrug*

  6. #376
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Marriage has always meant man + woman

    It is one of the oldest widespread notions of a tradition and institution in human history

    I understand facts are inconvenient to your position. Not my problem though.

  7. #377
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,055

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Marriage has always meant man + woman

    It is one of the oldest widespread notions of a tradition and institution in human history

    I understand facts are inconvenient to your position. Not my problem though.
    All you did was repeat the same fallacy.

  8. #378
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    All you did was repeat the same fallacy.
    It's not a fallacy

    It's historical fact beyond refute

    Marriage has always meant man + woman. There has never been a widespread notion that marriage has meant anything other than man + woman. Not man + ? or woman + ?

    Even the Spartans recognized and respected the institution of marriage as being man + woman and there was rampant homosexuality among the warriors

  9. #379
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,055

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    It's not a fallacy
    It's a fallacy because just because something may have always been, doesn't mean that it is logically supported in argument or even right, for two reasons: the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds, and/or the circumstances may have changed and the assumption may therefore be untrue. Considering the rapidly changing circumstances of marriage as well as who may conduct them, marriage is a particularly poor example of a tradition substantiated by history.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    It's historical fact beyond refute
    And this is where, if you have any self respect, you'll abandon altogether the historical argument in favor of one man, one woman: gay marriage is now accepted by a number of states and countries, therefore the argument that marriage has always been heterosexual is demonstrably false.

  10. #380
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    It's a fallacy because just because something may have always been, doesn't mean that it is logically supported in argument or even right, for two reasons: the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds, and/or the circumstances may have changed and the assumption may therefore be untrue. Considering the rapidly changing circumstances of marriage as well as who may conduct them, marriage is a particularly poor example of a tradition substantiated by history.
    So you're against science now?

    Traditions are an important source of public standards. The tradition of marriage is one of the oldest and most trusted institutions in the history of mankind for a reason. Children do best when raised by their biological parents in a low conflict household.

    And this is where, if you have any self respect, you'll abandon altogether the historical argument in favor of one man, one woman: gay marriage is now accepted by a number of states and countries, therefore the argument that marriage has always been heterosexual is demonstrably false.
    So not only are you against science, you're against historical fact as well.

    Gay marriage isn't real marriage and it never will be. It serves no real purpose socially or economically to society. Marriage has always meant man + woman. Not man + ? or woman + ?. If gays are allowed the special right to change the definition of marriage to fit their sexual behavior (or because they want benefits), then other groups are going to want the same "right" as well. Sisters marrying sisters. Brothers marrying brothers. Fathers marrying adult sons. Group Marriage. Whose "right to marry" would you discriminate against?

Page 38 of 45 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •